In source A I don’t think that there is really enough information to describe the battle accurately. The source only describes the army and what a shambles they were as they were being rescued. The source was focused more on the rabble of the army than of the actual battle happening around them. I think this is because the writer of the source is biased towards the army as he is in the navy and resents going to rescue them. As well because Thomas Kerr is biased towards the army he may not be telling the full story of what has happened around him to make the navy look better than the army. I don’t think that this source is useful for describing the Battle of Dunkirk particularly and I think the source is only useful for describing the rivalry between the army and navy.
In source, B a man called Bill Elmslie is describing what he saw on the minesweeper he was serving on. The Luftwaffe are bombing from the air and also a German fighter was going across the beach with his machine gun blazing. They were firing back also. He describes how a dive-bomber sends a bomb straight towards them but at the last minute, the bomb goes wide. This source is also primary as it was written at the time without hindsight. This source well describes the scene at Dunkirk I think as the source creates an impression of a lot going on and also an impression of suspense as the dive bomber is headed towards them. This probably would be the way most of the soldiers felt at the battle.
However the source does have limitations. Bill Elmslie was on a ship rescuing. He was not on the beach fighting and can once again only give the naval point of view and the battle going on in the water not the beaches.
The last source, source C was written by a Cornish able-seaman. This source may have been written with hindsight as in the passage the seaman uses the phrase “the bravest man I ever saw” which suggests that the source was written after the battle which means that his memory of the events may be exaggerated or he may have forgotten things.
The source explains in a way how the battle was fought. The sea man describes how a man single handed with a Bren gun Fights off waves of the Heinkels. Once again the source is a naval point of view however this time the man is talking about what he saw from his boat on the beach. This might not be as reliable as it could be as he could have made a mistake about what he saw.
I think that the sources above might not be as reliable as they could be as they are only one side of the argument. There are no accounts written by people from the army or the German army or navy to describe from their point of view how the battle was fought. Also, there are no points of view from the people actually on the beaches fighting. All of the sources are written by people doing the rescuing and not the ones being rescued. This however could be good as it gives a wide spectrum of what has happened through people doing the same things eyes, which could make the sources more reliable. The sources all describe a scene of chaos which was probably correct. The most reliable source I think is source B as it gives a first hand view of bombing the beaches.
